"Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops, like bishops, and your religious act like religious." - Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, 1972

Saturday, July 29, 2017

THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT

Posted by Tim

In today's just released article in the Pacific Daily News, canon lawyer, Thomas Doyle, alleges that the Vatican has protected bishops for centuries, and, "as a result, the bishops have gotten away with both sexually abusing children and promoting the sexual abuse of children by allowing priests, who they knew were abusive persons, to carry on repeat sexual abuse.”

It's time for a little rectification of names.

What is the "rectification of names?" Permit me to quote Confucius via Wikipedia:

A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

In short, Confucius believed "that social disorder often stems from failure to call things by their proper names, that is, to perceive, understand, and deal with reality."

Notice that Doyle (a superior man - at least in his training) uses the nebulous catch-all pronoun "they" - referring to another nebulous thing, i.e. "the Vatican." It's sort of like saying "the White House said..." as if the building itself spoke. Well who is THEY? And who is THE VATICAN?

Most of us just accept this nebulous, vague way of speaking, but it does us a disservice and leads to the people not knowing "how to move hand and foot," in other words, chaos, confusion, and certainly: "punishments not properly awarded." In fact, this "Tower of Babel" approach to naming things has created the diseased milieu in the church which has given suck to the very thing Doyle criticizes: the unaccountability of bishops.

Saying "the Vatican" gives the impression that there is some sort of central governing authority, a type of Church-Pentagon with the bishops simply generals in the field. Not true. The authority of the current occupant of the Chair of Peter does not extend to the daily administration of individual dioceses. There is no "employer-employee" relationship. At most, the pope can and does insert his authority when it becomes clear that there is a danger to souls, and this is extremely rare, and this is essentially why Apuron would brag: "No one can get me!"

The real problem here is not "the Vatican," which is an "it," but the people who run it, and those people are BISHOPS, which of course is why, as Doyle says: “...the bishops have gotten away with both sexually abusing children and promoting the sexual abuse of children by allowing priests, who they knew were abusive persons, to carry on repeat sexual abuse.” (At least he names the problem, here!)

Even the much vaunted "Dallas Charter," the U.S. bishops attempt to restore trust after decades of abuse on THEIR watch was revealed, is a self-protecting document, permitting the bishops to throw everyone else under the bus while they go to brunch and cocktails:

Article 5

When the preliminary investigation of a complaint (cc. 1717-1719) against a priest or deacon so indicates, the diocesan/eparchial bishop will relieve the alleged offender promptly of his ministerial duties...

Where sexual abuse by a priest or a deacon is admitted or is established after an appropriate investigation in accord with canon law, the following will pertain:

• Diocesan/eparchial policy will provide that for even a single act of sexual abuse (see Article 1, note *) of a minor—past, present, or future—the offending priest or deacon will be permanently removed from ministry. In keeping with the stated purpose of this Charter, an offending priest or deacon will be offered professional assistance for his own healing and well-being, as well as for the purpose of prevention.

So there you go. It's always the offending "priest or deacon" with the bishop playing judge. This is exactly how Apuron's policy was constructed, and why Deacon "For Sure For Sure" became "Deacon For Sure For Sure."

There was no need to investigate Apuron. Apuron was innocent "for sure, for sure!" But he's not alone. At least according to the "gold standard" (Dallas Charter) for clergy sex abuse, so is every bishop. So who is to hold the bishops accountable if even the pope is limited in his authority to do so?

Before I answer that, I want to address a recurring misconception. Apuron was NOT removed by Pope Francis in June of 2016 because of the allegations of sex abuse against him. Apuron was replaced by a temporary administrator because Apuron himself asked to be.

In late May, after the first accusation by Roy Quintanilla, Apuron had run to Rome where he crashed a regular meet and greet between bishops and pope. Apuron's story to the pope was that there were evil forces in Guam trying to get rid of him because of his public positions against gambling and same-sex marriage, and wanting to turn his seminary into a casino (LOL).

He asked Papa to send in Hon because Hon had done a pretty good job of slapping down the rebels on his first visit here in January of 2015. Apuron himself said this in his infamous June 6 video from Rome. Sure, it sounded like he was just covering his #ss, and we made fun of him at the time, but this is really what happened.

Apuron knew he was in trouble, not from any pro-gambling foes, but because of his own past. He knew it would catch him someday, which is why he bought NCW insurance. And he ran to Rome to cash in his policy, asking the pope to send in The Hon, who was the Filoni-controlled "enforcer." And Filoni Baloney was in turn "Kiko's pope."

But then something went really wrong. After a couple months (about August), Hon went off script. Apuron went nuts, accusing Hon of "exceeding his authority." Hon was sent to restore Apuron, and now he was turning on him. What happened?

Well, the clergy who were at the meeting in August with Hon and the former president of the AFC can tell you what happened. Let's just say that the truth was laid out and everybody's nose was rubbed in it. After that, Hon had no choice, and within a month, Hon was in Rome demanding Apuron's resignation.

So back to WHO is to hold the bishops accountable if essentially they are the highest authority in their dioceses with the pope only able to insert himself in very rare circumstances? Well, that is what Guam has taught the world: IT'S THE LAITY.

The Laity stood up, ever so slowly at first, but one after the other, they began to pound the pavement in front of the Cathedral, with every step shaking the ground 'neath Apuron's bed like Poe's "tell-tale heart."

This is how you do it, world. But let us not stop at sex abuse. Let us learn the lesson that this is how we do what Archbishop Fulton Sheen tell us to do at the top of this blog:

"Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops, like bishops, and your religious act like religious." - Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, 1972

5 comments:

Tom Doyle OP was the US Nunciature-based canon lawyer who fell on his sword exposing the pedophile clergy disaster in the landmark 1984 Doyle-Mouton Report which the bishops totally rejected. The Report destroyed the career which would have made him a bishop with 5 university degrees and he ended up as a failed USAF Chaplain.

His co-author was a very prominent Louisiana civil lawyer from a wealthy old family who was so distraught over the role he played in defending the Church that he closed his law offices and moved to France where he still lives.

I know Doyle. And I know his record. A couple years ago I published a letter from him on this blog, written in defense of Fr. Efren Adversario who was a fellow military chaplain. For those who don’t get it, my point in this post has nothing to do with him but a general bringing to the fore the problems we create for ourselves when we fail to name things, particularly the enemy. This is why from the beginning, I’ve never swayed from naming Apuron, Quitugua, Adrian, Pius, and all the bad boys in this.

It's easy to tell the fake Christians. They have no depth. So here, let me tell you. If Doyle and his pal went through hell because they did the right thing then "great is their reward in heaven." They don't need you running interference for them...or do they? According to you, Doyle was "careerist," all set to be bishop until he blew the whistle. Is this why he has an animus against bishops? Because he didn't get to be one? SMH